2005, 06-14 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 68 meeting
Attendance:
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike DeVleming, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
City Staff:
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Greg McCormick; Steve Worley
Greg "Bing" Bingaman, IT Specialist
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor Philip Koenig, Grace Harvest Fellowship gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Mayor Wilhite led everyone in the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded by Councilmember
Denenny, and unanimously agreed upon to approve the amended agenda as presented.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Wilhite announced that City Clerk Bainbridge has been accepted into the Entry Level of the
International Institute of Municipal Clerks, Master Municipal Clerk Academy.
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS
Councilmember Schimmels: reported that he recently attended the Solid Waste Committee meetings; the
Spokane Valley Business Group meetings; the Regional Transportation Commission meeting, and the
Light Rail Steering Committee meeting.
Councilmember Taylor: stated that along with all Councilmembers, he attended last Saturday's
Council/Staff retreat to work on Council goals, and that it was a productive meeting.
Deputy Mayor Munson: said that he attended the Operations and Administrative Sub - committee for STA,
of which he is chair; and that group is examining measures dealing with new buses and new bus routes.
Councilmember Flanigan: announced that he assisted in the U -High debate, and that there were ten
students from U -High and three students from Central Valley who made it to nationals and will be
traveling to Philadelphia for that event.
Councilmember Denenny: explained that he attended a special Spokane Transit Authority Board meeting
last Wednesday where the board approved the selection of new CEO Susan Meyer.
Council Meeting: 06 -14 -05 Page 1 of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -28 -05
Councilmember DeVleming• reported that he attended a Leadership Spokane graduation; a Foundation
Northwest annual meeting; and at the 911 Board Meeting some challenges were discussed now that the
transition has been made concerning Crime Check, and that there has been a larger than usual amount of
phone calls on Mondays.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended a meeting of the Disabled Veterans of
Spokane ; the Northwest Foundation meeting for their director; and a reception for R.S.V.P., which is a
group of retired citizens who have most recently been assisting students to improve their reading skills.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comments for members of the Public to speak to
the Council regarding matters not on the Agenda.
Neil Hanson, 11621 E 34 spoke concerning the upcoming helmet law; and that he does not want
government telling citizens what they can and can't do; and that wearing a helmet should be an individual
choice and City government should not place restrictions on lives.
NA Brown, 18915 E. Marretta: complained about the residence next to his residence, which is a rental
property, and the amount of junk vehicles and other junk in the yard and would like someone to address
that situation. [Mayor Wilhite stated that staff will check on the situation and report back to Mr. Brown.]
Gary Babock, 19010 E Buckeye Ave, Otis Orchards: said that he lives in the same neighborhood as Mr.
Brown and also notes problems with people not keeping their yards clean; that there has been some
switching of license plates, and there are numerous junk cars; that he has called the police and has
received no response; also that there are rats and snakes in the yard. [Mayor Wilhite stated that staff will
check on this situation also and report back to Mr. Babock.]
Karen Hanson, 11621 East 34 spoke in opposition to the upcoming helmet law; that she doesn't feel it
is government's place to impose this type of regulation; she read her statement, and handed a copy to the
Clerk for distribution to Councilmembers.
Roberta Jean Clemmings; 424 S McDonald Road: in reference to the helmet law proposed; that she has
two family members who have freedom of movement today because they were wearing helmets while
riding bikes; and that she feels we need to set example as adults; that she is not sure police should only
look for people without helmets; but having such a law, people will be more likely to wear helmets.
Joyce Jensen, 10601 East 9 Ave: stated her opposition to the helmet law; feels parents have enough
sense to decide if their kids should or should not wear helmets.
Myra Gann, 1119 S Dishman Rd: said she raised six kids in the Valley, and is against the helmet
ordinance; feels if a person were hit by a car, that a helmet wouldn't do them any good; and feels that this
matter should be a personal choice and not a law.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 2006 -2011 — Steve Worley
Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. and invited Mr. Worley to present the issue. Mr.
Worley explained that the City is required by state statute to prepare and after public hearing, adopt a
revised and extended comprehensive transportation program for the ensuing six calendar years; and that
the plan must be submitted to the Washington State Secretary of Transportation prior to July 1 of each
year. After brief council questions concerning several of the proposed changes, Mayor Wilhite invited
public comment. No comments were offered and Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 6:34 p.m.
Council Meeting: 06 -14 -05 Page 2 of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -28 -05
VOUCHER LIST
DATE
VOUCHER
Number(s)
TOTAL
VOUCHER
AMOUNT
05 -20 -2005
6854 -6872
1,213,659.96
05 -31 -2005
6873 -6915
391,474.49
06 -03 -2005
6928 -6956
88,364.03
GRAND TOTAL
1,693,498.48
2. PUBLIC HEARING: Closed Record Hearing on Appeals APP 01 -05; and APP 02 -05 — Cary Driskell
Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:34 p.m; and invited Deputy City Attorney Driskell to give
his opening remarks. Mr. Driskell explained that this is a closed record hearing and the public is not
permitted to participate. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed
upon that Mr. Driskell will keep the official time. After Mr. Driskell's explanation of the process, Mr.
Hormel spoke, followed by comments from Mr. Tabbert then Ms. Arpin, with rebuttal afterwards from
Mr. Hormel, Mr. Tabbert, and comments from Mrs. Tabbert. Attorney Driskell will provide Council will
copies of the Tugwell case mentioned, will research the question of the Council's authority concerning
deciding the constitutionality of a law; and asked that any subsequent council questions be put in writing
for Mr. Driskell's future response. Staff will research the needed information, and will reschedule the
matter for Council deliberation at a future council meeting. Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at
7:37 p.m. and called for a recess. Mayor Wilhite reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Note: For a complete transcript of the hearing, please see document entitled "June 14, 2005 Council
Meeting, Closed Record Hearing on Appeals APP 01 -05 and APP 02 -05," which document is attached to
and incorporated as part of these official minutes.
3. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A
Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately.
(Note: Council may entertain a motion to waive reading and approve Consent Agenda.)
a. Approval of the Following Vouchers:
b. Approval of Regular Council Meeting Minutes of May 24, 2005
c. Approval of Study Session Meeting Minutes of May 31, 2005
d. Approval of Executive Session Meeting Minutes of June 6, 2005
e. Approval of Payroll of May 31, 2005 of $ 173,710.12
f. Approval to Replace Diving Boards
g. Approval of Resolution 05 -008 to Waive Bidding Requirements for Diving Boards
h. Approval of and Authorization for City Manager to execute Interlocal Agreement for
Participation in Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI) Enterprise License
Agreement with Spokane County
i. Approval of and Authorization for City Manager to execute Local Agency Agreement (for
each phase of the project as needed) and Project Prospectus for the Argonne Road Rehabilitation
project.
j. Approval of Student Advisory Council Appointments
k. Approval to participate in the "Walk Across America" with an estimated cost of $100.00
It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, and unanimously
approved to waive the reading and approve the Consent Agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
4. Proposed Resolution 05 -009: Adopting the TIP for 2006 -2011 - Steve Worley
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Resolution 05 -009. Mr. Kersten, standing in for Mr.
Council Meeting: 06 -14 -05 Page 3 of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -28 -05
Worley, explained the changes proposed from last year's TIP. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no
comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson,
Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Flanigan, Denenny and DeVleming. Opposed: None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
5. Motion Consideration: Pavement Cut Policy — Neil Kersten
It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming and seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson to approve the
pavement cut policy. Mr. Kersten explained that there have been three different work sessions on this
issue at which times, the policy was discussed in great length; that the City of Spokane and Spokane
County have adopted the Policy as shown in the packet; and that Council asked staff to bring this matter
back for adoption consideration. Mr. Kersten mentioned that associated issues regarding staffing and
implementation will be handled by planning. Mr. Mercier also brought Council attention to an
accompanying resolution calling for an adjustment in the permit fees; and stated that such resolution can
be approved without amending the budget; that staff can track the matter and if a budget amendment is
required in the future, the budget can be amended at that time. Mr. Mercier also stated that there was
some question of the exact amount of such a fee and that actual expense could also be dealt with at the
end of the budget year. Further discussion included any need for additional staff (which could also be
brought back at a future time); Mr. Kersten's recommended changes on the matrix on page nine and his
assessment that the streets in Spokane Valley are in significantly better condition than those in the County
of the City of Spokane; and if Council were to consider a change, that he would recommend in the arterial
streets section of "Principal, Minor and Neighborhood Collector," to carry tier 2 through tier 3 and 4. It
was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson to amend the motion to approve to include the modification as
recommended by Mr. Kersten. The motion was not seconded and was therefore not considered. Mayor
Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Council discussion included the benefits of
a regional policy, that the policy can be revised later if needed, and that staff should inform Council of
any concerns as they may occur. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Munson, Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Flanigan, Denenny and DeVleming. Opposed: None.
Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
6. Proposed Resolution 05 -010: Amending the Fee Resolution (Pavement Cut Fees) — Marina Sukup
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny, to approve
Resolution 05 -010 increasing the pavement cut permit fees to $70.00. Community Development Director
Sukup explained the staffing concerns along with the number of permits anticipated and that the
construction inspection will be necessary. Deputy City Manager Regor explained that gathering the data
in terms of the last re- construct of the City is not yet complete; and staff continues to examine ways of
refining the estimate on the number of permits that will be received, but it was felt it would be more than
1200 and less than 3,000. Ms. Regor explained that the current fee has two parts: $16.00 is the permit fee
and $25.00 is the inspection fee; and that the proposed $70.00 includes both; and once the process begins,
if it appears that the cuts will require more inspections, that will be an issue for cost recovery at a later
date. City Manager Mercier added that regarding the reference in the cover memo, the current proposal
would carry 2.2 FTE allocated to that of two right -of -way inspectors; and .2 permit specialist and the data
management position is not in the current recommendation; adding that staff contemplates about $30,000
to initiate the data management. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Tony Lazanis said in the name
of fairness, he feels Councilmember DeVleming should excuse himself from this topic as he represents a
utility. Mayor Wilhite invited further public comment; no further comments were offered.
Council discussion then included the timeliness issue of the inspection; patches that fail and ensuing
inspections; and warranty concerns. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Munson, Councilmembers Schimmels, Denenny, and Taylor. Opposed: Councilmembers Flanigan and
DeVleming. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. City Manager Mercier said that staff will bring back an
item for the FTE to begin implementing the program.
Council Meeting: 06 -14 -05 Page 4 of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -28 -05
7. Second Reading Proposed Sign Ordinance 05 -016 — Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, to approve ordinance 05 -016. Community Development Director
Sukup explained the minor changes in the ordinance since the first reading concerning the sign structure
verbiage on page 9, and the advertising copy. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that staff would
like to suggest a modification at page 4 section 10.07.09.02 prohibited signs; to change #8 and to add a
#9; as the ad hoc committee determined that all off - premises signs were intended to be defined as
billboards; and to make the intent clear, it is recommended that #8 read "billboards" and that a new #9 be
added for "off- premise signs." After brief discussion of that suggestion, Deputy Mayor Munson moved to
amend the motion to include the suggested language; Councilmember Flanigan seconded the motion to
amend the motion. Vote by acclamation to amend the motion: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Munson, Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Flanigan, Denenny, and DeVleming. Opposed: None.
Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Councilmember Taylor moved to amend the motion to prohibit
unofficial signs from public rights -of -way, which would include political signs. There was no second to
the motion and the motion was not considered. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment.
David Gnotta, 805 S Marian Court: commended Council for their diligence; and in terms of sign policy
and in looking through the draft, he would like to see a method of being able to compare the current
document with what is proposed; he commented on allowing larger signs and having them closer
together, and suggested Council deal with the smaller, temporary signs.
It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to extend the
meeting for an additional twenty minutes.
Joe Tortorelli, 10418 East 4 said he works as a consultant in the Valley; and he recently built a new
management facility on Broadway; and he encourages passage of the new ordinance.
Bill Gothmann, 10010 East 48 Avenue: said as a member of the Planning Commission, he voted in favor
of the ordinance as it carries the aspects he looked for in a sign ordinance; and encouraged Council
approval of the ordinance.
Mayor Wilhite invited further public comment; no further comments were offered. Vote by acclamation:
In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, Councilmembers Flanigan, DeVleming, Denenny,
Taylor and Schimmels. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
8. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -019, STV 01 -05 Street Vacation — Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, Director Sukup explained that there have been no
changes since the first reading of the ordinance. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments
were offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, Councilmembers
Flanigan, DeVleming, Denenny, Taylor and Schimmels. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
9. Proposed Resolution 05 -011: Amending the Fee Resolution (CenterPlace Fees) — Mike Jackson
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and
seconded, to pass the amendment to resolution 04 -025 master fee schedule. Parks and Recreation Director
Jackson explained that the proposed changes to the fee include those fees associated with CenterPlace;
and added that as more functions and organizations use the facility, that new or additional fees will be
brought to the City Council periodically for formal approval; adding that the fees are in line with the
CenterPlace operating performa. There was brief discussion concerning the Senior Center dance floor in
terms of rental, and Mr. Jackson explained that the Seniors paid for 75% of the dance floor and they will
use that space according to the current plan coming to council in a few more weeks, and that the proposal
is that the seniors run their programs from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays; and after
Council Meeting: 06 -14 -05 Page 5 of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -28 -05
that and on weekends, the City would use the facility; and that the cost of the space far exceeds any
contribution toward the dance floor. Mr. Jackson said he will work further with those figures to make
sure the Senior Ad Hoc Committee is comfortable with those figures. Mayor Wilhite invited public
comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Munson, Councilmembers Flanigan, DeVleming, Denenny, Taylor and Schimmels. Opposed: None.
Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded, to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. In Favor:
Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, Councilmembers DeVleming, Denenny, Taylor and Schimmels.
Opposed: Councilmember Flanigan. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited further public comments; no comments were offered.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: [no public comment]
10. Law Enforcement 2005 Agreement — Nina Regor /Cal Walker
Chief Walker gave a PowerPoint presentation explaining the property crimes situation and how they are
working to fit their contract with the model language to make it easy to manage and monitor. He also
explained that he is asking for approval to include the new FTE in the model language which will be
brought back as 101.767 FTEs in the new agreement. There ensued discussion concerning the savings
from Crime Check of $120,000; that those funds are not specifically identified to pay for this and that
represents a new savings on funds not spent on other programs; the ability of the Police Chief to have the
freedom to manage his manpower as allocated to him by Council; and the need for the additional position,
which represents a small increase of .267 law enforcement.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to extend the meeting
to 9:40 p. m. In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, Councilmembers DeVleming, Denenny,
and Schimmels. Opposed: Councilmembers Taylor and Flanigan. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
City Manager Mercier said that staff seeks direction and asked if there is Council consensus to move
ahead with the proposal of adding .267 law enforcement to the consent agenda for next regular meeting.
Council concurred.
11. Administrative Re.ort: Communit Develo•ment Block Grant Pro ram U.date — Marina Suku.
City Manager Mercier said that this is a status report; that the issue will be on the June 28 agenda for
Council consideration to opt in or out; and that will be our last opportunity to 'address the issue within the
upcoming deadline.
There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded, and unanimously
agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Christine Bainbri ge, ity Clerk
C)41tAkLVii Mute,
Diana Wilhite, Mayor
Council Meeting: 06 -14 -05 Page 6 of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -28 -05
Appeal 'Transcript
acne 14, 2005 Council Meeting, Closed Record Hearing on Appeals APP 01 -05 and APP 02 -05
2
3 Mayor: Next on our agenda is a closed record hearing with regard to appeals 01 -05 and 02 -05, and we'll
4 open the public hearing at 6:34. Mr. Driskell.
5
6 Driskell: Thank you Madam Mayor, members of the Council. This is a closed record hearing for the
7 Council to consider two appeals from the decision of the Hearing Examiner arising from the same
8 development application. Appeal # APP 01 -05 was filed by appellant Steve and Barbara Hormel and
9 Tom and Kathy Tabbert, who are representing themselves. Appeal APP 02 -05 was filed by Whipple
10 Consulting Engineering, a consultant for the owner Dennis Crapo. Mr. Whipple is represented by
11 Attorney Meg Arpin. This is a closed record hearing and the public will not be allowed to participate in
12 any manner whatsoever, only the parties and Council will be allowed to discuss this matter, however,
13 Council certainly has the opportunity to ask questions of staff. There can be, obviously, being a closed
14 record hearing, no introduction of new evidence unless specifically a motion is made by one of the
15 parties. There are a number of motions mixed in with the briefs on the merits on the appeal issues, and if
16 you have any questions on those, I can advise you as attorney for the Council. Mr. Hormel and Mr.
17 Tabbert will provide their argument first. Ms. Arpin will respond, and then Mr. Tabbert and Mr. Hormel
18 will then have an opportunity to give rebuttal argument. There will be a total of 30 minutes for Mr.
19 Tabbert and Mr. Hormel including the rebuttal time, and a total of 30 minutes for Ms. Arpin. The parties
20 have been instructed that that is a maximum and they don't have to use it all. Following the presentation
21 of oral arguments, the Council has the option of beginning deliberations or taking the matter under
22 advisement.. If you take it under advisement, staff will schedule time in the very near future for your
23 consideration. Do you have any questions?
24
25 I)eVleming: Mr. Driskell, who's going to actually be the timekeeper on this?
26
27 Mavor: 1 can do it or you can take care of it.
28
29 Driskell: 1 would suggest that staff
30
31 Mavor: Chris
32
33 Driskell: member be a better position to do that. So, if need be 1 can do that.
34
APP 01 -05 and APP 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 1 of 23
Appeal Transcript
35 Taylor: Madam Mayor. I would just make a motion then to have City Attorney, Deputy City Attorney
36 Cary Driskell keep the time.
37
38 Munson: Wonderful suggestion.
39
40 DeVleming: No objections here.
41
42 Mayor: Ok. Thank you.
43
44 Clerk: There's a motion
45
46 Mayor: Pardon me? There's a motion that we have Mr. Driskell be the timekeeper, and do we have a
47 second?
48
49 Munson: Second.
50
51 DeVlcming: We have a motion?
52
53 Mayor: You did make a motion did you not?
54
55 Taylor: I made a motion; 1 moved.
56
57 Mayor: Ok, It's been moved and seconded we have Mr. Driskell keep time. All in favor say Aye.
58
59 Councilmembers: Aye
60
61 Mayor: Opposed? None? Ok, thank you Mr. Driskell. Mr. Hormel, if you'd like to step forward.
62
63 Hormel: First of all I'd like to thank Mr. Driskell. He's been very helpful. I understand that this is the
64 first type of appeal that's been before the Council and the Mayor, and we've had to walk ourselves
65 through some procedural voids, and he's been very helpful in that regard. And, this is also the first time
66 I've ever had the opportunity to work on a land use sort of issue. What I did is I filed two motions to
67 dismiss. And what I would like the Council to do is incorporate that into my memorandum in opposition
68 to the rezone as opposed to hearing this motion, because I did incorporate them by reference, therefore,
APP 01 -05 and APP 02-05 Council Transcript Page 2 of 23
Appeal Transcript
69 I'II just outline the four issues that are relevant to my appeal as opposed to hearing them as motions to
70 dismiss, because they are substantive legal issues so I'd like the court — or the Council excuse me, to
71 consider them in that fashion as opposed to hearing them as separate motions, which I think is more
72 appropriate anyway.
73
74 The issues raised in the affected property owners' appeal is the appeal of the rezone decision that came
75 down by hearing examiner Mr. Dempsey, and what he did he allowed the rezone of the area, af fected area
76 in the dispute, to go from a UR 3.5 to a UR 7, and permitting an increase in the density of housing from a
77 total of 4.35 houses per acre up to six houses per acre. And, what we're claiming essentially is that
78 decision is wrong according to law and according to the findings of facts in that immediate neighborhood;
79 and what 1 would like to do is address first of all, the applicant's opposition to our appeal and her
80 memorandum that was filed in that regard where it states that, first of all, i think the law's clear that the
81 applicant, the person who's rnoving for this rezone, umm, let me back up. I want to tell you who I am
82 first. Where 1 live is at 516 S Barker Road. Where the development is, is the next lot, I'm adjacent. to the
83 lot, which would be west of Barker Road but on Fourth Avenue down the road on Fourth Avenue, so 1
84 am, I am a property owner that's on the border of this proposed application, and this proposed PUD
85 application. So I am directly affected as well as the neighbors around me directly affected by a possible
86 rezone that would affect in essence, the change and texture of our neighborhood. So that's why we're
87 here today to avoid that sort of change in the complexion and texture of our neighborhood. And what the
88 applicant has to show is a change in circumstances. They state twice in their response to our appeal that
89 where the action that is proposed is consistent with the comprehensive plan, the proponent is not required
90 to demonstrate a change in conditions. I don't think that's the law, and in fact, i read the case that was
91 specifically cited to by the applicant in that regard. And what the law says is this, and this would be the
92 Tugwell decision, Tugwell vs. Kittitas County, it's cited in the briefs so I won't cite it, but it said "in
93 Washington a rezoning proponent — that would be the applicant in this case — must show a substantial
94 change in circumstances since the original zoning or amendment and must show that the rezoning bears a
95 substantial relationship to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare." Then it goes on to state
96 "where an application for rezoning complies with a comprehensive plan is not determinative, only a
97 general conformance with the comprehensive plan is required." There is nothing there that dispels with
98 the substantial circumstances changes, and in fact, what the applicant is trying to convince the city council
99 of, is that because they're going to be building houses and because the density of the UR 7 is still in the
100 low density zoning criteria, that they're within the comprehensive plan, but they are not within the
101 comprehensive plan because the comprehensive plan for that area and areas around it, is UR 3.5, so there
102 has to be a change in circumstances shown. And what 1 want to do is go through a litany of facts that 1
APP 01 -05 and APP U2 -05 Council Transcript Page 3 of 23
Appeal Transcript
103 would like the council to focus on in the record that, that show that there is not a substantial change in
104 circumstances.
105
106 First of all, there's three things that the Council has to factor in. One is changes in public opinion.
107 Changes in public opinion are a factor that this Council has to consider and decide whether this rezone
108 should go through. Changes in land use pattern have to be considered, and changes in the property itself.
109 Now, 1 was at the public hearing. There were several members of the public and and, neighbors and
110 people in and around that area, that oppose it, and the public opinion definitely shows a disfavor or
1 1 1 opposition to this rezone. So I think the public opinion factor sides with us. But that's not determinative.
112 I think the law's clear that that alone shouldn't be the factor that Council, you know, holds the decision
113 on. The main factor, the biggest factor, is the changes in land use patterns. And what I would like to do
114 is compare the facts of the Tugwe11 case with the facts that are present in this case to show that there is
115 not in this case, with the bordering neighbors, with the bordering areas, the places in immediate vicinity
116 of this rezoning request and application, there has not been a substantial change in the use of the land.
117 And the way that is demonstrated is in the appeal packet that was provided. If you look at page #241, it's
118 an aerial map with an arrow that shows the site, and if you'll see the immediate neighbors and the houses
119 that are in that immediate area, the density is actually Tess than a 3.5; in fact, our house sits on three-
120 quarters of an acre. And if you'll look at the acreage around the immediate area, most homes are on at
121 least a half acre or more in this immediate area. Again, if you'll look at the comprehensive plan at page
122 243 that was submitted by the planning department, and shows against the outline of our community, or
123 our neighborhood, there is no development, or no use of the land that is consistent with a UR 7. And, in
124 fact, it's not even consistent with a UR 3.5 because it's Tess density than UR 3.5, although the
125 comprehensive plan allows for that if the proper development plan is submitted to the planning
126 department.
127
'128 Again, the other map that shows that is at page 244 of the appeal packet, and what you'll see is that whole
129 area in the immediate area of the applicant's request is again 3.5, which is what is in the comprehensive
130 zone. What I'd really like for Council to focus on is page 256; it's another aerial map that was taken and
131 presented to the hearing examiner. That shows significantly the density of the existing homes and then
132 right smack -dap in the middle of the density of the existing homes, you will see what that development's
133 going to look like. And, changes in use of the land. if you look to, further to the west, you'll see an open
134 field. If you look further to the west of that, which would be going towards the top of the map, open
135 field. None of those, none of this land has been subdivided. None of this land bordering our
136 neighborhood, bordering this proposed application has been subdivided in the manner in which the
APP 01-05 and API' 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 4 of 23
Appeal Transcript
137 applicant in this case is trying to subdivide it. So, when you're looking at the clement of a substantial
138 change in the use of land around the proposed application, there is none. What the Hearing Examiner did,
139 which 1 think is wrong and i think the Tugwell case will point this out
140
141 Driskcll: Madam Mayor, I apologize for interrupting. We met beforehand and Mr. Hormel indicated that
142 he was going to take ten minutes for his argument -in- chief; Mr. Tabbert would take ten minutes; they'd
143 each have five minutes for rebuttal; and 1 would note that you're at ten minutes.
144
145 Hormel: The other matters that 1 raised I will submit on my brief because I do believe the change in
146 circumstances is the most important. Thank you.
147
148 Mayor: Mr. Tabbert.
149
150 Tabbert: Thank you. I often told myself that if 1 ever got in front of the City Council, I would want to
151 personally thank Madam Mayor and Councilmembers for the great job you do for our City of Spokane,
152 and that 1 voted for each one of you guys.
153
154 Manor: Irrelevant.
155
156 Tabbert: I'm not a lawyer. I've got all this stack of paperwork this high on this whole matter and I'm
157 trying to trudge through this; and the closest thing i get to the law is forwarding on the c -mail jokes I get
158 regarding lawyers. I'm a citizen of this community and I have a deep passion for the development of this
159 community and how we're going to grow intro the future; and I stand before you tonight not only as one
160 single voice along with my cohort, but also I represent a number of voices of other citizens. If you turn to
161 page 258 and 259, my wife and I took the time when this project was proposed, to go around and talk to
162 all the various neighbors about this; and to a `i' — 100% signatures, and you'll see the propositions, there
163 were two propositions that 1 proposed concerning this to get a flavor for what's going on here. And, as 1
164 spoke to neighbors the variety of emotions I received were many, particularly outrage that such an
165 awkward and irresponsible plan would be submitted and put forth in our community. Most people feel
166 that this is a subdivision corning into our neighborhood; two: disgust — some people were contemplating
167 moving because they're thinking that the City's going downhill; and three: a voice of helplessness
168 because 1 come before you to talk about this matter; a lot of people say what good is it going to do; it's
169 just going to happen, it's being railroaded through and there's not much that we're going to say about it
170 and I'm here to beg to differ. This is a case of precedence. If you let this development go in our
APP 01 -05 and AI't' 02-05 Council Transcript Page 5 of 23
Appeal Transcript
171 subdivision like it's proposed, the developers are all going to point. to it and say we did it here, and we
172 want to do it here, and we're going to do it here, and we want to do it over here. And it happened at the
173 hearing and i guarantee you [slight gap in the tap as the tap was turned overt for which resources we
174 don't have available to manage those homes, and then they're going to jump to the next spot and say look,
175 we did it here so you have to approve it at the next spot. That's the big key in my mind about this
176 development. It's the developers versus the citizens. We work. We got family lives; we're very busy
177 people. They work too but their work is to develop, is directly focused on what areas that they can
178 develop and make a buck on. So, they have interoffice relationships with your staff; and I noticed that
179 when 1 was in there that i kind -of sensed that there was a little bit of warming toward some of the
180 developers that were in your office. And 1 kind -of think that that relationship in your office might lead to
181 some sort of, some types of sloppy pre - planning and assumptions by your planning office. For instance,
182 the poor presentation that was at our hearing. On page 245 of your manual, it's just a planning picture of
183 a house, but it's presented as a house that's associated with the property, when in fact, this is a house
184 that's located across the street and it was obvious to me that the person that put this together did not even
185 take the time, fifteen minutes, to drive out and take a look at this operation and what's going on.
186
187 The other thing is the misinformation to the developer, i.e., the plain arterial dispute; and if a developer's
188 going to come in and plan this thing out and spend the money, how is it that they can overlook such a
189 simple law like the main arterial dispute? Who's in charge to let this thing get this far is the big question
190 that everybody has; and when you talk to neighbors, not only in our neighborhood but in the community,
191 everybody shakes their head and wonders how these things can even progress this far. This is a case of
192 putting the fox in charge of the henhouse; and I'd caution you to just take a look internally at what's
193 going on and why this has gotten where it has today. The zoning laws to me are out of control.
194 Somebody could come in at 3.5 UR zoned acre and get it, and anticipate getting it moved to zone 7; and
195 stuffing 22 homes inside of four acres, 3.9; it's beyond me. The other thing that is beyond me is we're
196 calling this low density; and I don't think that 22 hones in that confined space in my mind, is low
197 density; because then what would you call our, our neighborhood? What is the comprehensive plan here?
198 And 1 hope I'm not redundant, but if you guys turn to page 242, which is a map of the area, okay, that's
199 not only our immediate neighborhood but the surrounding area. Take a look at those lots. Those are all
200 the property Tots that are out there. There are some smaller Tots, but the smaller lots range from three -
201 quarters of an acre to perhaps half an acre; but look at the majority oldie lots. My lot is three acres. My
202 neighbor's lot is seven acres across the way. This is a rural area, - we've got city irrigation water corning
203 in here for livestock and crops, and now we're going to take and turn this into a small subdivision that's
204 been proposed is preposterous.
API' 01 - 05 and API' 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 6 0 23
Appeal Transcript
205
206 We talked about the substantial change and what would cause this UR 7, UR 3.5 to be bumped up to UK
207 7. i've studied this thing and 1 think 1 found out the answer. They changed the crop from a pumpkin
208 patch to an alfalfa field. Because there's no other changes that! can see in our neighborhood that affected
209 this thing. i want to point out some things, what will change if this thing does get approved. There's
210 going to he a need dedicated sewer line specifically for this project; it's going to be ran a half, almost a
211 half mile from Long Street, down the side of the road just specifically for this project; it's going to by-
212 pass all the neighbor's homes and it's going to be exclusive to the homes being built for this project. This
213 is not consistent with the current neighborhood. We're going to be giving up our future allocated space to
214 the sewer systems, to this new development; and as you are well aware, that the sewer system is over -
215 stressed right now and needs, all, some expansion
216
217 Driskell: Madam Mayor. 1 hate to interrupt, but I would remind the parties that we need to stick to the
218 record that was presented to the hearing examiner and not go beyond that.
219
220 Tabbert: This was presented to the Hearing Examiner about the sewer systems; and I'II try, you'can
221 remind me if you see any more. The construction started and a new treatment center needs to be
222 improved. The current and future cost to the neighborhood, in terns of the sewer system; what happens if
223 this sewer system fails and we got to tear up the whole street? It's going to be at the expense of the
224 existing people to help put the sewer system in. These are all points 1 raised at the hearing and it's directly
225 affected by the rezoning. And my last comment here is the sewer line that's going to be specifically for
226 this is going to be a half mile long. The second point: the increased traffic on our rural rouge. This
227 development is going to double the size of our neighborhood on Fourth Avenue between Barker and
228 Long; it's going to double it in one fell swoop; and has anybody done a traffic pattern study? Has
229 anybody taken a look at the intersection of Fourth and Barker, particularly with the new developments
230 going on on Saltese Lake, how much traffic is going to be going down that road; and now we're going to
231 inject even more into it? Look at the school traffic, and this is most concerning. I challenge any one of
232 you Councilmembers to please come out on an afternoon, or morning when school is going down Fourth
233 Avenue. If you turn to page 248 please and take a look at that picture. That's Fourth Avenue. It's not
234 hardly even two lanes wide; and when a school bus comes down you gotta pull almost off the road to let
235 these larger trucks go by. If a garbage truck comes down. And then think of the school kids walking
236 down that street. That's our community, that's our little road and now we're going to put influx of 22
237 more residences right there and inject them onto Fourth Avenue. So who's done a traffic study? Nobody.
238 There's going to be an increase and an increased risk to pedestrians and kids riding their bikes. There's
APP 01 -05 and APP 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 7 of 23
Appeal Transcript
239 going to be increase, increase in over - crowding of the schools; and also one issue that may have come up
240 and i do believe we mentioned this, this is an increase of crime potential because there's no parks, and
241 you're going to have that many more residences in there. Now, I'm going to ask. I submitted evidence
242 after the hearing that I'd like to mention in the case. Am 1 permitted to do so?
243
244 Driskell: Actually, that is a motion that I would suggest that you argue the merits of and then the Council
245 can decide whether they're going to accept: that information or not.
246
247 Tabbert: Alright. It's just a point. Thank you. It's just a point. CV Superintendent Mike Pearson sent
248 a letter petitioning City Council to charge impact fees to developers which we feel would barely put a
249 dent in overall cost of these developments that are over - crowding our schools; and if you look at
250 Greenacres Elementary and the Middle School out by us, they are significantly over - crowded and taxed.
251 So there's been no school levies, have not been written or voted on yet and that's a key point to this as
252 well for the redevelopment. So, we're not opposed to the development. But we do require things such as
253 an EPA study for how the runoff's going to be on this particular land use. We do require some traffic
254 flow studies and some school accommodations to be addressed. We want to set the guidelines up for
255 development and make the plan consistent with our neighbor
256
257 Driskcll: Madam Mayor. We're at ten minutes.
258
259 Tabbert: Okay. Thank you. Don't turn our neighborhood into a hodge -podge of dwellings and fences.
260 The lot size is critical. Each lot should have it's own septic system and confine the development and no
261 leaker streets into future developments.
262
263 Mayor: Thank you.
264
265 Tabbert: Thank you.
266
267 Mayor: Please, please [in regard to the clapping]. Ms. Arpin.
268
269 Arpin: Thank you Madam Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Members of City Council. Meg Arpin, 11 17 East 35 111
270 Avenue, 99203. I want to apologize for having to step out during Mr. Tabbert's presentation, 1 had a little
271 scratch in my throat. i want to thank you all for considering the appeals before you this evening.
272 Obviously both the neighborhoods as well as Mr. Crapo's, filed by WCE, Todd Whipple of Whipple
APP 01-05 and APP 02-05 Council Transcript Page 8 of 23
Appeal Transcript
273 Consulting, Engineers is here as well as Dennis Crap, the owner and applicant for the property. There is,
274 we have before you a motion to dismiss that I'd just like to make a couple of comments on. i know that
275 all of you are very diligent and I'm sure that if you have not yet read all the material that it's on your
276 homework list, so 111 try not to duplicate the arguments set forth in the brief and just try to highlight in
277 order to, I promised Cary that I wouldn't use the full thirty minutes, and 1 intend to abide by that. With
278 regard to the motion to dismiss, the basis for the motion to dismiss is just that the procedures for filing
279 appeal to Hearing Examiner's decision provide that such an appeal has to set forth specific facts and
280 issues for the appeal, and in this case the only thing that was said was a statement that the hearing,
281 basically saying, alleged specific errors, I'm sorry, state an appeal that they're appealing the approval of
282 the rezone and the failure to require a complete environmental impact statement. That doesn't put the
283 applicant or the City on notice as the basis for appeal, and 1 think that quite frankly, Mr. Tabbert's
284 presentation and I understand that he is not a lawyer, but 1 think that his presentation really highlights
285 why there is the need for this. None of the arguments that Mr. Tabbert finished on regarding stormwater,
286 traffic, school capacity, none of those were raised either in the appeal itself or in any written
287 memorandum with the exception of the motion to supplement that was submitted with the newspaper
288 article. So, until I stood here today these issues weren't raised. We didn't have the opportunity to brief
289 them in our response and that's really the purpose of this provision in the municipal code, because the
290 whole purpose is that we don't' come to hearings and get ambushed by issues. That being said, I will
291 address there; and the other issue with the motion to dismiss is to dismiss the SEPA claim because a
292 timely appeal wasn't filed and I know the response to that deals, is, underpins M.r. Hormel's due process
293 claim, and i'll just discuss that briefly in the context of the opposition to the appeal. In order to sort of
294 keep things sort of moving in a flow, if Council, if it's alright with Council, what I'd like to do is address
295 the neighborhood's appeal, and then follow up with the basis for our appeal therefore we're sort of
296 following a flow here if that's alright with Council.
297
298 There are basically a couple of different arguments that appellants have advanced in support of their
299 appeal of the rezone decision. The arguments advanced in the motions with regard to spot zoning and
300 change of circumstance, misunderstand what the comprehensive plan category is. Both of these
301 documents that were filed with the Council as well as Mr. Hormel in his oral argument, refer to the
302 comprehensive plan as 3.5. The comprehensive plan is not 3.5; that is the current zoning out there. The
303 comprehensive plan category is low density residential, or, for this area. That is what we look at in terms
304 of #I — do we need to show change of conditions; and 1 respectfully disagree with Mr. Hormel with
305 regard to the Tugwell case and the law with regard to the necessity of showing a change of condition
306 when you show consistency of the comprehensive plan; and I think that if you look at the Tugwell case, if
APP 01 -05 and APP 02-05 Council Transcript Page 9 of 23
Appcal Transcript
307 you look at the series of the case with regard to what needs to be shown for a rezone decision, if you show
308 consistency with the comprehensive plan, you need not show change of conditions; and the reason for that
309 is that exactly like we have here. We have GMA comes in, we have a new comprehensive plan, we have
310 new zoning, and the only way that new comprehensive plan is ever implemented, is with new zoning. In
311 cases recognized when you're implementing, when you're implementing the comprehensive plan through
312 zoning, you no longer have to show the change of circumstance because the change in circumstances is
313 adoption of a new comprehensive plan. That really is the change in circumstance, and then if you show
314 consistency with that, you need not show change in circumstances. And that is the law in the State of
315 Washington. If you look at the Tugwell, decision, and it's also highlighted if you look at your own zoning
316 code, which you adopted from Spokane County, the criteria for rezone in your own zoning code provides
317 it can be amended if 1 — the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan and is not
318 detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or there has been change of conditions. So you either
319 show consistency with the comprehensive plan or you show a change of conditions. You need not show
320 both under your own zoning code to get an amendment. The argument with regard to spot zoning, again
321 if you take a look at the case that's cited by Mr. Hormel, that pre- supposes that the proposed zoning is
322 inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. That assumption underlies both the change of condition
323 argument and the spot zoning argument because this proposed zone, the Hearing Examiner correctly
324 found this consistent with the comprehensive plan, therefore both of those arguments loose their merit.
325 And specifically, I know that you are well aware of this, and 1 think one of the problems that, and I
326 ccttainly see it representing developers out in Spokane Valley, in the County, and in the City of Spokane,
327 and 1 know that it's been repeatedly brought to this Council's attention, you know, there's, there's
328 changes that occurred with growth management, with the adoption of a UGA, with the change in the
329 comprehensive plan and a change of zoning. Those happen, and they will forever change the framework
330 of development in the city, it's what the legislature dictated and what the jurisdictions were forced to do.
331 These are the regulations we work under now, and that, that's what's creating the precedent. It's not the
332 approval of any particular subdivision. The precedent is set with enactment of the laws; and those laws
333 are what. the hearing examiner follows when he made this decision, made all the appropriate findings to
334 sustain the rezone decision, consistency with the comprehensive plan, again, this is low density
335 residential, envisions a density of one to six units per acre; that, this zone is consistent with that policy.
336 Also, this rezone is consistent and helps implement the policy of an average of four units per acre city-
337 wide. We have plenty of areas which are developed out at lower than four units an acre in order to reach
338 that average of four units an acre you need some higher density.
339
APP 01 -05 and APP 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 10 of 23
Appeal Transcript.
340 With regard to the arguments on you know, in -till development of this nature, developers purchasing two
341 or three -acre lots in the developing out, it's exactly what's envisioned by the comprehensive plan, exactly
342 what's envisioned by the Growth Management Act. Again, the other arguments that were raised with
343 regard to this rezone dealt with due process, and appearance of fairness. With regard to the due process
344 argument, this is fundamentally based on the fact that the MDNS was issued on February 18` and that by
345 the time that the notice for public hearing went out, there was only day remaining on the time period to
346 appeal the MDNS. The only thing that is required is publication in a newspaper, under the WACs and the
347 Code; that's all that's required for notification of an MDNS. And certainly appellants, Mr. Hormel can
348 conceded, that typically publicized, published notice is sufficient. The argument that appellants advanced
349 in this case that somehow raises the bar and creates this due process argument is that in his letter, he
350 asserts that he specifically requested a copy of whatever document was ultimately generated. if you look
351 at the letter he sent to the planning department, it talks about recommending an EIS be prepared; and then
352 it asks for notice of developments or meetings. The EIS wasn't prepared because an MDNS was issued;,
353 notification of that was through publication, and he was advised of the public hearing for the notice. Now
354 the other concern that I have with regard to a due process argument. was, was this issue raised in front of
355 the hearing examiner; and I would suggest that the answer to that is no. And if you look at the transcript,
356 this really tells you that the answer to that is no. Mr. Hormel did raise, they did have an exchange with
357 the Hearing Examiner as to what the process was, to review the documents, come to a threshold of
358 determination, and how that's published and notices given. Mr. Hormel never raised anywhere in front of
359 the Hearing Examiner, the issue of I only got this document the day the appeal period expired, how can
360 you not let me appeal. That issue, that argument was never put in front of the Hearing Examiner for him
361 to consider.
362
363 But the real question is what is the import of this, and 1 think, and this goes to the appearance of fairness
364 argument because underlying that is the appellant's assertion that somehow the Hearing Examiner forbad
365 them or precluded them from raising these issues. That simply is not the case. If you look at the
366 exchange with the Hearing Examiner, he says, well, the MDNS itself is not in front of me because there's
367 not an appeal; environmental issues and matters are still relevant for my consideration; and invited the
368 appellants to testify with regard to environmental concerns that they had. So really it is of no import
369 because they were fully able to create a record on environmental issues. And if you look at, I'm going to
370 rely on a section in my brief that talks about the MDNS and why the MDNS even if appealed, would be
371 sustained because there is absolutely nothing within this record that would raise to a level, to have you as
372 the decision maker come to a firm and definite conclusion that a mistake has been made. There's simply
373 nothing in there that rises to the level that you would feel that an EIS was necessary for again, 21 lots.
APP 0 1 -05 and API' 02-05 Council Transcript Page 11 of 23
Appeal Transcript
374 So, unless you have any questions with regard to the appeal of the rezone, I'd just like to make, highlight
375 a couple of brief issues with regard to our appeal on the preliminary plat and PUD. Does the Council
376 have any questions with regard to the rezone? Actually, one other thing, there was the motion that was
377 made with regard to Central Valley School District. 1 would just point the Council to, first of all, i don't,
378 this isn't new evidence. i think we run into a big problem if we characterize newspaper articles that come
379 out after a hearing date, as somehow new evidence that should be considered by the Council because
380 there's not the opportunity to fully explore the facts. I think the more important piece of evidence with
381 regard to the school capacity is the letter from Dave Jackman specifically commenting on this project.
382 That's found on page 217 in your record, indicating that the closing paragraph is that present, Central
383 Valley High School has capacity to house grades nine through twelve students expected to reside within
384 the development, the paragraph talks about they have limited capacity in some areas and may have to bus.
385 And if you look at the Hearing Examiner's findings with regard to schools, it is finding of facts 1169 and
386 70 dealing with capacity and also school capacity alone is not a sufficient basis to deny a rezone or a
387 project and Mr. Dempsey really goes through the record with regard to school capacity in those two
388 findings, and nothing has been brought forth in this appeal to challenge those findings. And again, my
389 brief goes through the standard of review that you look through as appellant body; I know you've read it
390 so 1 won't go over with regard to the deference you paid to those findings.
39I
392 With regard to our appeal, this basically comes down to the fact that this application was submitted as a
393 PUD preliminary plat and rezone. It went through the entire process. It was accepted, fees were paid for
394 both the preliminary plat and the PUD, went through the entire process, received a favorable
395 recommendation on both the rezone and the preliminary plat at the PUD at the hearing, went through all
396 the period, and then suddenly the decision comes out the rezone's approved but the preliminary plat and
397 the PUD are denied because of a discrete sentence found in the PUD overlay ordinance, which this
398 Council passed and became effective, consequentially the date this application was submitted, and the
399 sentence of your PUD ordinance requires that PUI:)s have direct access to a collector and arterial. And
400 the basis for our appeal is three -fold. First of all, that the provision of your PUI ordinance is invalid for
401 three reasons. First of all, it's beyond the police powers because there's no nexus between the intent and
402 purpose of your PUD ordinance and it's discrete condition; and also it violates substitutive due process
403 and equal protection; and I'II just highlight these very briefly because I know that you've all read the
404 materials.
405
406 Denenny: May I ask a question in this. My understanding on these closed hearings is that we can simply
407 look at the determinations of the Hearing Examiner, and we cannot look at, I mean we have to look at
APP 01-05 and AI'I' 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 12 of 23
Appeal Transcript
408 whether what he was put in front of him, he interpreted correctly as opposed to us questioning whether
409 the ordinances themselves are correct?
410
411 Driskell: That would be my understanding Mr. Denenny.
412
413 Denennv: So this to me would be irrelevant as far as the part of the hearing, the hearing examiner's
414 portion.
415
416 Driskell: Can you clarify that please.
417
418 Denennv: She's talking about the consistency or the legality of an ordinance that we passed.
419
420 Driskell: That's my understanding, that one of her arguments is the legality of it.
421
422 Denennv: So, ok so that can be, and that can be part of this hearing as opposed to determining whether
423 what we put in front of a hearing examiner in effect, an ordinance, you sec where I'm going with that? I
424 mean, to me there's obviously a little twist. If we pass an ordinance, and the Hearing Examiner interprets
425 that ordinance the way we passed it, then the hearing examiner can't be held liable; that would be
426 something that would have to come back to the Council to change the ordinance or is that not the issue?
427
428 Driskell: Is your question whether the Hearing Examiner can, and I'm asking if this is implied in your
429 . question, the Hearing Examiner can determine the validity of the ordinance and whether that's at issue?
430
431 Denennv: Well, that would be part of it; but if the Hearing Examiner has an ordinance in front of him, or
432 her, they need to interpret, they need to enforce that ordinance.
433
434 Driskell: They apply the law to the facts and reach the decision; in this case a recommendation that's
435 come to the Council. So, yes, they look at the law as written.
436
437 Denennv: And you're; what I hear Ms. Arpin asking is that the ordinance not be applied; you follow?
438
439 Mercier: Perhaps 1 can attempt to clarify. What I understand the point of Councilmember Denenny to
440 be, is that if the purpose of the closed record hearing is to determine whether or not the Hearing
441 Examiner, have been errors of law, then he's uncertain about the germaneness of Ms. Arpin's argument
APP 01 -05 and APP 02 -05 Council Transcript I'age 13 of 23
Appeal Transcript
442 about the day that the ordinance became applicable, if that was not an issue, that was placed before the
443 Hearing Examiner. Was that your question?
444
445 Arpin: If 1 may Councilmember. A couple of things. First of all in the and I don't know the status of
446 the appeal procedures whether that's been passed. 1 know Mr. Driskell's been working on it in terms of
447 appeals of the hearing examiner to this Council. If you look at those and the standard of review that
448 really was taken from a number of different areas of law to try to compile it into this ordinance, concisely
449 stating what the procedures are. One of the basis for granting relief is that the decision violates
450 Constitutional rights. So that is a basis for you to grant relief, and that is what
451
452 Denennv: I guess that why I'm; so if we determine that something we passed violates Constitutional
453 muster, we can determine, we can change the determination of the Hearing Examiner that was based upon
454 that.
455
456 Arpin: Absolutely.
457
458 Driskell: As an error of law.
459
460 Denennv: Ok. That answers my question. What was that Cary?
461
462 Munson: Is that correct Cary?
463
464 Driskell: If the Council believes that there was an error of law that was made by the Hearing Examiner.
465
466 Denennv: Right.
467
468 Munson: No no no; that wasn't
469
470 Flanigan: That's not what he's saying. What he's saying is Mr. Dempsey had our ordinance in front of
471 him when he made the decision. If his decision was predicated on that ordinance, can we say he was
472 wrong? Because he's following what we dictated he do. Isn't that what your question was?
473
474 Denennv: Yeah, that's it.
475
API' 01 -05 and APP 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 14 of 23
Appeal 'Transcript
476 DeVleming: Yeah, yeah, that's the way I see it.
477
478 Denenny: And, and, the way you answered that was if we find that our ordinance and its determinations
479 infringe upon Constitutional law, then we can find, in effect, we're finding ourselves in violation and
480
481 DeVlcming: And we're not holding Dempsey to a portion of law that is really unconstitutional.
482
483 Driskcll: Madam Mayor. What's 1 like to do is look specifically at that issue and certainly come back
484 and advise the Council; the Council may elect to take this under advisement and to ask specifically those
485 kinds of questions.
486
487 Munson: I would like to follow up the question that was just asked. Does this Council have the
488 authority to decide the constitutionality of a law?
489
490 DeVleming: to decide that Rich.
491
492 Driskell: That would be one of the things I'd like to get back to you on.
493
494 Mayor: Mr. Driskcll; Mr. Driskell will research that so we'll let Ms. Arpin finish her arguments and then
495 we can take up the matter.
496
497 Arpin: Thank you. Again, 1 think that there is just so 1 can weigh in, because [ don't think Mr. Driskell's
498 going to ask me to weigh in after the close of this hearing, I suspect, just so I can weigh in, I would say
499 that do you have, in answer to your question Councilman Munson, do you have the authority to determine
500 whether or not one of your provisions of your laws are unconstitutional. Certainly you don't have to
501 make that decision, you can leave it up to a court, but what i would suggest is that in looking at this
502 provision of the PUD ordinance, that you look sort of from the back -end, in light of what's happened here
503 because 1, 1 truly believe that this circumstance wasn't intended. So, but I think you can make the
504 decision before a court does, saying that really given these facts, there isn't any relationship between this
505 PUD ordinance and a broad -brush prohibition of allowing PUDs in 70% of the city. `Cause that's what it
506 comes down to. Because if you look at, if you look at your arterial road map and see how much land does
507 in front of a collector and arterial, you're broad - brushing a lot of property without any sort of direct
508 examination about whether the local access road that serves that is adequate or not, and this is, this is the,
509 this just highlights the problem with that, because if you look at this particular project, you have your
APP 01 -05 and APi' 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 15 of 23
Appeal Transcript
510 engineering department issuing a certificate of concurrency finding that the transportation facilities are
511 adequate for the densities proposed; you have a trip distribution letter saying that the capacity of Fourth
512 Avenue is there; that there's no additional analysis that's necessary; you have no comments of concern
513 from your engineering department that the facilities local access or not, are inadequate to accommodate
514 the development, and you have a record that tells you that basically this number of lots could be applied
515 for without a PUD. We're talking about a density, no bonus density was obtained here. So we're talking
516 about the same number of lots that would produce the same number of cars, dumping out that access
517 point, a local access street whether it's approved as a PUD or a preliminary plat, the impact is exactly the
518 same, and those types of individualized, we are not saying that you don't need to analyze, that the City
519 engineering department doesn't need to look at the impact of a project on a transportation facility and
520 make a determination about whether that facility is adequate to accommodate the development. We're
521 just.saying that the law doesn't allow you to presume that because it's done as a PUD, that local access
522 streets aren't adequate. And if you look at the record here, and if you look at the specific purpose and
523 intent of your PUD ordinance, and you compare it to what's required of these additional standards, there
524 is, your, I understand that the Council was concerned with regard to public versus private road standards;
525 and that's in your intent arguing one of your purpose and intent. And that's, and that's addressed in one
526 of the provisions saying that even if you build private roads, they gotta be built to public roads standards.
527 Understanding you want connectivity; and that's dealt with actually in the first sentence of this particular
528 section of the PUD ordinance; but there's no, there's no rhyme or reason for this last sentence requiring
529 direct access onto a collector and arterial. There's nothing which indicates why it's there. It's certainly
530 not done for an engineering reason in connection with this project highlights; and so with regard to that, I
531 think clearly if you look at that section of the PUD ordinance, it's beyond, and your police powers are
532 broad, but when you enact needs to be directed to some sort of evil, to cure some sort of public evil or
533 problem. And I would say a broad -brush statement like that,. without individualized analysis, simply
534 doesn't meet those standards. And the equal protection argument basically comes down to treating a
535 PUD different than a subdivision; and again this project really highlights it because the same number of
536 cars would come out through a subdivision, and the question is, is this local access street adequate. That
537 question needs to be answered, no question; but not by a statement in a PUD ordinance directly
538 prohibiting it in all instances.
539
540 With regard to what we're asking the council to do in terms of relief for this provision, and again, the
541 reason it wasn't in front of the Hearing Examiner is quite frankly no one knew about this statement. Staff
542 didn't know about it or they weren't aware of it otherwise they certainly wouldn't have recommended
543 approval because the PUD met all the requirements. The applicant was never made aware.; that's why this
API' 01-05 and APP 02 -05 Council Transcript l'agc 16 of 23
Appeal Transcript
544 issue wasn't discussed in front of the Hearing Examiner, you're not going to find it in the record. But I
545 am not in my briefing or in my request for relief from this Council, relying on any facts other than what's
546 in the record and just simply stating that those facts in looking at that particular) provision of law, it
547 doesn't rise to the muster necessary to be sustained under the rules governing the police powers and what
548 can he enacted; and I think that really those are outlined in the brief. And the relief we're asking is for the
549 Council either through this action to declare that provision invalid, or to remand the application, repeal
550 that provision of the ordinance, and allow the Hearing Examiner to consider the preliminary plat and the
551 PUD under a PUD ordinance without that provision, to basically, and then he can review it without that,
552 we believe Constitutionally offensive provision. Or, I guess the laws relief we would ask for and this
553 certainly is not a preferred form of relief because we think particularly this project, the amenities and the
554 benefits of development through a PUD really, it's got a park, it really is a better design through a PUD
555 process allowing some smaller lots, allowing a park, it's better designed as a PUD, but I guess our last
556 form of relief is if you're not, if you're not inclined to agree with our arguments with regard to
557 constitutionality of that section of the PUD ordinance, would be to at least remand this matter to the
558 planning department, allow Mr. Crapo to withdraw the PUD overlay zone, and redesign as a plat, because
559 I don't believe he should be penalized for everyone's ignorance of this provision in the PUD ordinance;
560 and that's what's really happening here, is sort of getting blindsided by a decision after following a
561 process. So, while not our preferred form of relief, that is what we would ask for in any event.
562
563 Mavor: Thank you.
564
565 Arpin: Thank you.
566
567 Driskell: Madam Mayor, i believe that the Hormels and Tabberts have between four and five minutes
568 each five remaining on the rebuttal.
569
570 Mavor: Ok.
571
572 Hormel: by the way, my wife is present in the Council Chambers, so she's here also. Just to address the
573 last issue first about the due process and equal protection. What this court, ah, court, what this Council
574 has to find is that, is that's there's a rational basis, a reasonable reason to have the ordinance drafted as it
575 is. And there's plenty of reason and rationale why a PUD would be placed on an arterial or collector were
576 it as opposed to a rural road. You've seen the picture of the road that we're talking about. We're talking
577 about safety, we're talking about traffic; we're talking about the health and safety of the people of that
APP 01 -05 and API' 02 Council Transcript I'age 17 of 23
Appeal Transcript
578 area; that's another reason why Mr. Dempsey's decision is inconsistent by allowing the UR7, because this
579 Council's already decided for the safety of our children and our neighbors, that these large communities
580 shouldn't. be on rural roads such as Fourth, but Mr. Dempsey's decision to allow the re -zone allows
581 exactly what this Council's trying to prohibit by having passed that ordinance, and it is rationally related
582 to it; a reason for having that ordinance, so for those reasons, I'II talk about the notions to dismiss; it's in
583 my memorandum in opposition. Gone are the days of , now are the days of notice
584 pleading. We have to give notice of what it is that we are intending to do. `there are memorandum
585 procedures that allow us to then further define what it is our issues are. Our notice of appeal said we're
586 appealing the rezone and the findings and facts and conclusions of law thereto. So, the Council can read
587 my e-mail that I sent to the planning department, I asked for any information, or be informed of any
588 development and meeting regarding the above application. If that includes environmental impact
589 statement, or whatever, I was entitled to that, and to have the notice to come out the day before my appeal
590 period was due is definitely a violation of due process in this case, and read the hearing about where 1
591 tried to bring that out and where 1 was told I can't speak about it. So, my last point, if Ms. Arpin is
592 correct that a change in circumstances isn't necessary then we wouldn't have the case of Tugwell ■vs.
593 Kittitas County, because what that was was a request to change an agricultural 20 into an agricultural
594 three which fit the comprehensive plan in the sense that she's talking about here, in other words in this
595 case, it's a low density category as opposed to an agricultural category. if they didn't have to prove a
596 change of circumstances in that case, we wouldn't even have that case. They had to show a change of
597 circumstances and the law isn't that that's dispelled with, if you, if legal counsel reads that case 1 think
598 that's the proper conclusion. Thank you.
599
600 Tabbert: Have you had enough yet? You all pass a lot of laws and you get a lot of things going out
601 there as instruments to try to control what's going on. I don't know if you can envision by the laws that
602 you make, exactly how things are going to happen out there. And the point was brought up that sort of
603 made a light bulb go off in my head, is that these two to three acre projects are exactly what is envisioned
604 by the comprehensive plan. And I'm going to throw it out back to you. I'ni going to challenge and I'm
605 going to invite and I'm going to beg that you guys come by and take a look at this development, take a
606 look at this neighborhood, and see what is being proposed here. And you make the decision whether or
607 not you think this is the way you want Greenacres to be developed, ok, because I'm telling you that 1
608 think that this is going to set the precedence. My wife would like to say a few words.
609
610 K Tabbert: Hello, Kathy Tabbert, the other half. I'm not a lawyer, I don't have a lot of money neither
61 1 do my husband or the Hormels, and when you go up against a developer, they have the resources, they
API' 01-05 and APP 02-05 Council Transcript Page 18 of 23
Appcal "Transcript
612 know where to go, they know where to look up, they can hire their lawyers to represent them. Now to
613 maybe our appeal was incorrectly all the way around because, you know, I'm a mom, my husband works,
614 Mr. Hormel works, Mrs. Hormel is a mom, so we don't have the time nor the resources to do all this the
615 correct way. And I know all you, don't you have other jobs than this right, you do this on extra, you
616 know. And you have to understand that if we're going to change the essence of an area, we have to really
617 look deep inside our hearts of what's going to be left. I'm like the softer side of all this legal talk, you
618 know. I didn't go to Mr. 1 riskell's meetings, or anything like that. But l just want you to really look. 1
619 have three boys. They're not going to be able to go riding their bikes on Fourth Avenue if there's too
620 many cars. When they did their traffic study, they did the traffic study, the half block, not even a half of
621 block from where they're going to develop to Barker; they didn't go the other way because everybody
622 goes the other way. They go down Fourth to Greenacres, past a business, and then out. They don't go the
623 way they did the thing. And, it, you have to come and actually look at what's happening, look at the area.
624 Use your imaginations where you would go. Bring pieces of paper, my house is on 4 points, whatever,
625 3.5 all this technical stuff. You can't do that to my area. if you did that you'd have to tear down my
626 house. Our neighborhood is more than a piece of paper. Our neighborhood is more than rules and
627 regulations. If you're worried about kids wearing bicycle helmets and you're going to, we're going to
628 make them wear, have a standard that we want them to follow, then we have to keep the developers, who
629 are more powerful than a five -year old kid wearing a helmet, to, you know, be responsible to their
630 neighbors. We want them to develop their land, they have the perfect right, but we're asking them, they
631 bought it at that zoning they should keep it at that zoning. I mean you're not going to want me to build a
632 big fancy, you know office building on my property; I won't get that zoning. So, I just implore you, like
633 my husband, just look at it. Five minutes. I'll make you coffee. We have an espresso machine. Just
634 come, look at our neighborhood, get a feel for it Thank you.
635
636 Mayor: Thank you.
637
638 Driskell: Madan Mayor. While it's awfully nice of them to invite you to come out and look, I would
639 remind you this is a closed record hearing and that would be the introduction of new evidence into the
640 process.
641
642 Mayor: Okay. Thank you.
643
644 Flanigan: I'd like a follow - question on that real quick. Our driving out there to look even though we
645 have pictures taken from all angles, would be a violation?
APP 01-05 and APP 02 -05 Council Tnurscript I'agc 19 of 23
Appeal Transcript
646
647 Driskell: My recommendation to you as Council, would be as your counsel, would be that it would
648 introduce a new argument into the process if you were to go out and do that. What you have in front of
649 you is a series of photos and maps of the area and that is what has come forward to you from the Hearing
650 Examiner. My recommendation would certainly be that you consider the record in front of you in making
651 your determination.
652
653 Taylor: Madam Mayor.
654
655 Mavor: Mr. Taylor.
656
657 Taylor: I would point out that in the transcript, Mr. Dempsey did say that he had gone to the site to take
658 a look at it.
659
660 Driskell: Councilmembcr Taylor that is correct, and that was in the formulation of the record of his
661 recommendation to this city council as the decision maker. Again, my recommendation would be that.
662 city council needs to base their decision on the record in front of them.
663
664 Mayor: Okay. Because a question was raised with regard to the constitutionality, that Mr. Driskell is
665 going to research for us, do we want to just take this under advisement until we can get Mr. Driskell, give
666 him time to research that question that you've raised and get that information back to us?
667
668 Denenny: That would be one point of recommendation. I would like to take it under advisement. I
669 would like to re -do what 1 have read prior, listening to the testimony, having time to listen to (apes if 1
670 wish, but I would like some time.
671
672 Flanigan: Another request from me?
673
674 Mavor: Yes, Mr. Flanigan.
675
676 Flanigan: 1 might have missed it in all the reading and everything, but we do have the Tugwell vs.
677 Kitsap?
678
679 Driskell: That was not provided in the briefing but I can certainly provide a copy of that to the Council.
API' 01 -05 and APP 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 20 of 23
Appeal Transcript
680
681 Mayor: Mr. Munson.
682
683 Munson: With all due respect to the Council, I would like to point out that we're dealing with some
684 definitions here that. maybe not all of us are familiar with. What's a country lane or rural road as
685 expressed in the record versus an arterial and an arterial collector? It's difficult to understand the
686 differences unless you go look, and 1 would recommend that if somebody wants to go out and look at the
687 area and not stop and talk to anybody, which in fact would cause us to be perhaps, swayed one way or the
688 other from the record, that that would be advisable, and with all due respect, Sir, 1 think you're wrong in
689 saying we shouldn't go out and look at it.
690
691 Mayor: So is it the consensus of the Council then that we go ahead and take this under advisement and
692 have Mr. Driskell provide us with the information and we can put it back on the agenda for discussion?
693
694 Flanigan: I have another quick question then.
695
696 Mayor: Mr. Flanigan.
697
698 FlaniEan: Like I've already asked for Tugwell v Kitsap, but if other issues should come up, is it
699 appropriate to ask our attorney for information or is it only to ask at that point in time?
700
701 Driskell: If you'll forgive me for just a minute. [pause while Mr. Driskell consults with Mr. Mercier.]
702 Councilmembcr Flanigan, your question as 1 understood it was if you have questions based about, on
703 information that is in the record, you can seek clarification from legal counsel, and certainly 1 believe that
704 you can do that in the formulation of what you're looking at. We would then reschedule this again for
705 your discussion and deliberation and pleasure, if that's there for you, in the near future, for deliberation.
706
707 Mayor: Thank you. Anything else?
.708
709 I)enenny: Do you want to put a time on this now or do you just want to keep it open on the agenda?
710
711 Mayor: Well, 1 think we'll try to give Mr. Driskell time to do it, then 1 think we'll try to schedule it at
712 the earliest possible moment that we can after you've gotten the information and give you sufficient time
713 to look at it in case anybody needs to re -read.
APP 01 -05 and APP 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 21 of 23
Appeal 'Transcript
714
715 Flanigan: In fairness to the parties involved, can we get a ballpark; I think more from the Council then
716 from you, I mean we're the ones that are going to be digesting this; and I mean does anybody have a
7 17 comfort zone?
718
719 Denenny: I'd be willing to do it next week, put it in the study session.
720
721 DcVleming: We'll be gone next week.
722
723 Mayor: We're not having a meeting next week, so that gives us time.
724
725 Denenny: Well the following meeting, as it is two weeks out.
726
727 DeVleming: I'd be ready in a couple of weeks.
728
729 Schimmels: l have to ask how do we address these questions to you?
730
731 Driskell: I do have the questions that you've asked at this point, but if you have subsequent questions, I
732 hadn't considered that.
733
734 Schimmels: In other words, do you need them right now, or can you take those, through a little more
735 thought process?
736
737 Driskell: I believe I have the questions that you have and if you have additional questions, you can
738 certainly put those through the City Manager and I can consider those.
739
740 Mercier: A point, and that is the Deputy City Attorney has been the legal contact for the Council for this
741 proceeding, and for continuity purposes, 1 think he should be the contact person for any subsequent.
742 questions. I'd only urge that those questions be put in writing.
743
744 Mayor: Okay. 1 was going to suggest that we maybe want to put them in writing for Mr. Driskell.
745
746 Driskell: That way we do have a record of what's corning down.
747
APP 01 -05 and API' 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 22 of 23
Appeal Transcript
748 Mayor: I knew that as an attorney you'd probably want to suggest that.
749
750 Flanigan: Except for what we've covered already this evening, cause it's in the record.
751
752 Mayor: Correct. Driskell: Correct.
753
754 Mercier: Just for purposes of clarification, I'm not certain if two weeks will be sufficient time to address
755 the questions that were raised this evening and some additional research that the Deputy City Attorney
756 would need to do, suffice it to say we will try and quicken the turn- around time but I wouldn't want
757 anyone to think that two weeks is the absolute end of the time period at the moment.
758
759 Flanigan: But let's shoot for that. Like I said, for deference to the individual parties that are involved.
760
761 Mayor: Okay, alright. Then I believe we will close the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
762
763
AI'I' 01 -05 and APP 02 -05 Council Transcript Page 23 of 23
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
TOPIC OF CONCERN
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
M A,. g jez-..
vn-'K PC4c1 -4°,
6 `' /C /A .eI
- 6 ' l ”Z
if 0 K. fi
`
4 revx \A c` n. Se n
Na 1 ei rn a- I S Lk)
9A -y3 7
t>.?vtci GA(o «e7
5 /3n• R lrc_
805 S. / Pin
907/
. o` •
4 , w?
1 I / C Y 1\ .
C{ )A'Iiii
%Z (L.-73 L
_ _ a e_. ` - i _ i i
t t", /Au -)--
/of 0 /z.` ,
S1�Ran
"4,
PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET
SPOKANE. VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DATE:(°14,_20051
CITIZEN COMMENTS ON ITEMS ('OT INCLUDED_ON' IONIGHP - -S GGA'D Please
include your name and address for the record. Your time will be limited to three (3) minutes.
• • ,1
The Spokane Valley City Council will vote on June 28th to impose a mandatory bicycle helmet law for
adults and children. 1 am against a mandatory helmet law, especially for adults.
On May 24 the Safe Kids Coalition lobbying group urged an ordinance in the Spokane Valley requiring
children and adults to wear bicycle helmets.
Did you know...
*Two of the Coalitions main sponsors are bicycle helmet manufacturing
c(mp anies. Bell Sports is the world's largest manufacturers of bike helmets and
thc other sponsor is Troxel bike helmets.
*This lobbying group has bccn able to infringe on our rights in Washington
State more so than any other state in the U.S. There are over 19,000 cities or
municipal governments in the U.S. Of these 19,000 cities/Gov. only 8 cities
(excluding cities in WA) have imposed Mandatory helmet laws on adults. In
WA state 25 citics/Gov.. Have mandatory helmet laws for adults.
*The Safe Kids lobby group uses a defense of health acre costs. But the costs, it
seems to me, are quite low compared to the;
$75 -$100 billion per year health -care cost for obesity,
$75 - $150 billion per year health -care cost for smoking,
$135 billion per year cost for alcohol related health care.
I don't feel it is governments' place to demand that we protect ourselves
from ourselves. I don't have the right to tell them what to eat or not to drink or
smoke and they don't have the right to tell me 1 can't ride my bike unless I wear
a helmet. What's next, fining an obese person a $100.00 it they are standing in
line at McDonalds?
*47% of bicyclists killed lived in 4 fates CA, NY. FL, and TX.
*The odds of dying from a bicycle injury are 375.412 to 1. about the same as it
is for falling off a piece of furniture in your home and dying With these small
odds it seems like a very unnecessary infringement on our rights
*One can expect to have some kind of crash for every 4500 miles you travel on
a bike. That's a lot of riding.
* The bike helmet law would take the time of law enforcers. The new
Washington Crime Report states that the part -1 crimes (murder, rape, robbery,
aggravated assault, burglary, etc.) had increased 3.1% last year. Over 320,000
part -1 crime arrests were made. The value of stolen property was $353
million. The police officers 1 tacked to think their time could be put to better use
than watching for illegal bicycle riders. 1 feel we pay the officers to protect us
from harmful criminals, not protect us from ourselves.
To speak for the children, 1 will say that of the 1.5 million children in WA
State, 2 bicycle. deaths occurred amongst ages 0- 14yrs, (2002 latest data found).
The other 133 fatal injuries that occurred were; 22 auto deaths, 20 drowning. 16
burn victims, 6 poisoned, 3 deaths by falls, 8 suicides, 21 homicides, 2
tmdctcrntincd causes It seems as though the efforts could be put to better use
elsewhere.
I also have a concern that thc relationship of trust and friendship that thc law
enforcement has worked so hard in the past years to create with children will be
diminished. The cops will become someone who "tattles" on them, and gets
them in trouble with their parents.
Consider the men & women serving in the military who are putting their lives on
the line to preserve our rights and freedom. 17o you tell them when they get
back home that they no longer have a right as basic as riding a bicycle in a
manner that they desire.
1 told my dcrnutologist that I like to be out in the Sun. He told me that he likes
to ride his motorcycle and that he knows what risks are involved. He said, "but
we assess our risks and then we do what we enjoy, and that's what conics with
living in a free society."
The Spokane Valley residents 1 have discussed this with and/or polled are
100% against the law for adults and about 80% against the law for children.
They all felt the city has absolutely no right to tell an adult to wear a bicycle
helmet They feel that children should wear helmets, their kids wear helmets, but
they don't want the city council telling them how to raise their children, and they
don't want law enforcement involved.
My recommendation to the City Council is...
*Vote your constituency not the lobbyist
*Education not legislation
*Keep the promise of the platform on which you ran for office, which
was to preserve the valle li estvle" and "impose minimal
gnvernmeru. "